Northrop Grumman Computing Systems, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 362
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- This CDA case involves a second CDA claim after a prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (June 23, 2011).
- Plaintiff initially failed to file a proper claim with the contracting officer as required pre-suit; a previous suit was dismissed for that reason.
- A new CDA claim was submitted to the contracting officer on July 20, 2011.
- The contracting officer purportedly denied the second claim on September 16, 2011; five days later, plaintiff filed the instant suit.
- The court issued a show-cause order on September 22, 2011 and, after briefing, concluded lack of jurisdiction based on Sharman Co. v. United States and related authority; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
- The court held that Sharman controls and that there was no final contracting officer decision while the claim was in litigation, depriving the court of jurisdiction under the CDA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction over the second CDA claim. | Sharman is distinguishable; CO's decision can revest authority. | Once in litigation, CO lacks authority to issue final decision; jurisdiction requires final CO decision. | Lacked jurisdiction; Sharman controls; dismissal without prejudice. |
| Did the contracting officer have authority to issue a final decision while the claim was in litigation? | Authority revested after first suit’s dismissal. | CO cannot issue final decision during ongoing litigation; authority resides with DOJ. | No authority; decision issued without authority; nullity. |
| Is the time to seek CDA relief governed by prior litigation status under §1491(a)(2) and Sharman? | Time counts from final CO decision independent of litigation status. | Litigation status precludes valid final CO decision; jurisdiction fails at filing. | Jurisdiction lacks; timing contingent on final CO decision post-litigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharman Co. v. United States, 2 F.3d 1563 (Fed.Cir.1993) (final progress payments decision while claim in litigation is a nullity)
- Case, Inc. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1004 (Fed.Cir.1996) (finality of contracting officer decision under CDA in litigation)
- Bath Iron Works Corp., 20 F.3d 1567 (Fed.Cir.1994) (limits of CDA jurisdiction and final decision principles)
- Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir.2007) (application of Sharman principles in CDA disputes)
- Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States, 99 Fed.Cl. 651 (2011) (contextual prior dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under CDA)
- England v. The Swanson Group, Inc., 353 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004) (CDA jurisdictional prerequisites; strict limits)